This is one of the elements of asymmetric warfare we need to come to grips with. Asymmetric warfare is nothing new, either; it’s largely how the American Revolution was fought, and the (American) Civil War, too.
At the time of the American Revolution, shooting from behind trees and stone walls was not how “gentlemen” waged war. At the time, “acceptable” warfare was waged between lines of marching troops and rank upon rank of riflemen facing each other across a battlefield. Hit and run, guerrilla type operations were “ungentlemanly”.
In the American Civil War, the asymmetry was between the Union’s massive advantage in material production that enabled them to carry more materials to the South, where the war was fought. Had the North been attempting to break the union instead of the Confederacy… then the war would still have been fought in the South, because the Union had the capability to do it that way. In addition, part of the Union strategy late in the war was to nullify the Confederacy’s ability and willingness to fight… by taking the fight to the countryside, especially during Sherman’s “March to the Sea” through Georgia.
If you’re going to fight a war, you have to fight the war that you have, and not the last one. (One of the primary reasons France and the Low Countries were so quickly overrun during the Nazi Blitzkrieg—the French thought that they’d be continuing the trench warfare of WW 1. The Germans had a few new ideas.)